Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28114624›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2017

Patient Advocacy Organizations, Industry Funding, and Conflicts of Interest.

Susannah L Rose, Janelle Highland, Matthew T Karafa, Steven Joffe

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Financial relationships between patient and consumer representatives and the health industry: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry: an overview and an appraisal of possible strategies and research needs.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021
    Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Susannah L RoseOffice of Patient Experience, Department of Bioethics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio2Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Janelle HighlandHarris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Matthew T KarafaDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Steven JoffeDepartment of Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) are influential health care stakeholders that provide direct counseling and education for patients, engage in policy advocacy, and shape research agendas. Many PAOs report having financial relationships with for-profit industry, yet little is known about the nature of these relationships. Objective: To describe the nature of industry funding and partnerships between PAOs and for-profit companies in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey was conducted from September 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014, of a nationally representative random sample of 439 PAO leaders, representing 5.6% of 7865 PAOs identified in the United States. Survey questions addressed the nature of their activities, their financial relationships with industry, and the perceived effectiveness of their conflict of interest policies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Amount and sources of revenue as well as organizational experiences with and policies regarding financial conflict of interest. Results: Of the 439 surveys mailed to PAO leaders, 289 (65.8%) were returned with at least 80% of the questions answered. The PAOs varied widely in terms of size, funding, activities, and disease focus. The median total revenue among responding organizations was $299 140 (interquartile range, $70 000-$1 200 000). A total of 165 of 245 PAOs (67.3%) reported receiving industry funding, with 19 of 160 PAOs (11.9%) receiving more than half of their funding from industry. Among the subset of PAOs that received industry funding, the median amount was $50 000 (interquartile range, $15 000-$200 000); the median proportion of industry support derived from the pharmaceutical, device, and/or biotechnology sectors was 45% (interquartile range, 0%-100%). A total of 220 of 269 respondents (81.8%) indicated that conflicts of interest are very or moderately relevant to PAOs, and 94 of 171 (55.0%) believed that their organizations' conflict of interest policies were very good. A total of 22 of 285 PAO leaders (7.7%) perceived pressure to conform their positions to the interests of corporate donors. Conclusions and Relevance: Patient advocacy organizations engage in wide-ranging health activities. Although most PAOs receive modest funding from industry, a minority receive substantial industry support, raising added concerns about independence. Many respondents report a need to improve their conflict of interest policies to help maintain public trust.

Indexed as

Financial ManagementPatient AdvocacyPublic Health AdministrationBiotechnologyConflict of InterestDrug IndustryEquipment and SuppliesHealthcare FinancingHumansPolicy MakingUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.